tiltbillings wrote: At this point, I'll stay with the highly educated and experienced bhikkhus who have done the work for which you have no time.

I've got a question regarding Ven. Bodhi's introduction to the Sotapattisamyutta in his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. On pages 1517 and 1518 he refers to the tetrad of the sotapattiyangani as "qualities that must be actualized to attain stream-entry" -- which I'm in full agreement with. But later on page 1520 he writes: "These qualities lead not only to stream-entry but to all the fruits of the path."(my emphasis) -- thus implying that the puthujjana possesses these qualities prior to having actualized them. Does Ven. Bodhi mean to say that the sotapattiyangani are within the domain of the puthujjana? Is it appropriate to attribute the sotapattiyangani to the puthujjana prior to stream-entry?

Any clarification would be welcome.

Why don't you put that question him directly. Apparently he is accessible to such enquiries.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

dhamma follower wrote:Who are we compared to the qualities he was endowed with?

Similarly, who are we to make up the qualities and history he was endowed with? Much of what you state about his history and path to enlightenment was not actually said by the Buddha himself and is just hagiography created by others to make the Buddha sound more impressive to those who are impressed by such grandeur.

It would be rather unfortunate if we did not look directly at the Buddha's own teachings, as they were presented, but insisted on filtering them through posthumous hagiography and scholastic frameworks instead.

Metta,Retro.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

tiltbillings wrote:So, you would not agree with robertk's highly dismissive and bitingly negative assessment of meditation practice: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&start=80#p228511" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ? ...What I find unfortunate in this is that KS does not really seem to understand what actual meditation is about as a process of growth in understanding, and the negative attitude she which has toward "sitting in the dark" is reflected in her students, and that has been reflected in this thread.

From what I understand regarding KS and her students:

(a) A distinction is made between wholesome and unwholesome intention, so the wish/decision to do anything, including to develop mindfulness, wisdom, etc, can be either wholesome or unwholesome.

(b) It is recognised that intentional development (wholesome) of wisdom and other wholesome factors is possible, however, this is thought to happen at the stage when faculties are highly developed, when it’s basically natural to “sit at the roots of trees and meditate” directing one’s mind to samatha or vipassana, without the danger of it turning (largely) unwholesome.

(c) All of K.S. students I came into contact with (except Kevin) consider their mindfulness, wisdom and other faculties to be quite underdeveloped. So, they are of the opinion that if they were to attempt intentional development, it would be largely unwholesome since underdeveloped faculties do not allow the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome states to be made, and thus, one’s likely to be developing largely unwholesome states, including wrong view, since unwholesome states predominate for someone with underdeveloped faculties.

(d) That thought to be the case, they give each other (and occasionally to others – by habit, or by assumption that we’re all pretty much the same) the advice appropriate to those with underdeveloped faculties. As in, if you can’t tell the difference between wholesome and unwholesome states, then you really have no idea what is it that you’re intentionally trying to develop at the moment, so better consider the teachings some more until that distinction between wholesome and unwholesome is more clear.

In regards to all above, perhaps the main issue worth considering is how under/developed are my faculties? If they’re developed, then K.S. advice specifically on meditation simply doesn’t apply to me. But how to determine this? What would be the very basis of development of wisdom? From what I gather, it seems the very basis is the ability to know an instance with mindfulness as different from an instance without it (so, basically, the faculty of wisdom is developed at least to the extent of knowing what the actual experience of mindfulness is). From this, distinction between wholesome and unwholesome states can be known (because I think in Theravada it is taught that sati only arises with wholesome mental states), and thus, distinction between un/wholesome intention, wish, etc, can be known, and thus, intentional development is now possible.

This of course is something each person would have to determine on one’s own. I still find it difficult - in the past 2 decades there were many occasions when I thought – well, this would have to be mindfulness, I know now what is the experience of mindfulness, but then, that conclusion wouldn’t be confirmed in the long run. So, I’m still considering this one. However, since my faculty of wisdom hasn’t really developed even to such a basic stage, it stands to reason that I can’t really arouse wholesome states intentionally. I mean, I can arouse states, and it’s inadvertently done all the time, but likelihood is that they are mostly unwholesome and I can’t really tell which is which in order to cultivate one kind and not cultivate another (arouse more of one and not arouse more of the other).

So there’s a whole number of issues that need considering then, e.g. how do faculties actually get from underdeveloped to developed stage, is it a passive path, can something be done, how do you make sure whatever you’re doing isn’t unwholesome again, what is an actual moment of bhavana, what conditions it, how does wisdom actually develop, what of the grey area when faculties are sort of in between, can I learn from my own mistakes, etc?

I find most of K.S. talks are directed to those sorts of questions, and I can go into that next unless something above needs clarifying first?

I don't think your comment below is fair. While you might not like the details about the Boddhisatta' lives, which nonetheless are recorded in the Buddhavamsa as well as the commentary to the Vinaya - Cariyapitaka, the main point made in the post was about our being hearers only, and that we have to rely on his words to develop understanding, and that we actually have a very low level of wisdom. If you wish, you might directly address those points. Since i was talking about those specific points and was not discussing themajor content of the Buddha 's teaching in that post, your comment about looking directly at his teaching doesn't seem to apply.If you think that the arguments i've presented so far about the cause of wisdom run counter what the Buddha said, I would be happy to discuss about that with you.

Brgds,D.F

v

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings DF,

dhamma follower wrote:Who are we compared to the qualities he was endowed with?

Similarly, who are we to make up the qualities and history he was endowed with? Much of what you state about his history and path to enlightenment was not actually said by the Buddha himself and is just hagiography created by others to make the Buddha sound more impressive to those who are impressed by such grandeur.

It would be rather unfortunate if we did not look directly at the Buddha's own teachings, as they were presented, but insisted on filtering them through posthumous hagiography and scholastic frameworks instead.

SN 20.7: Ani Sutta wrote:Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. [1]

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

Note1. Ironically, the Commentary notes that the drum originally could be heard for twelve leagues, but in its final condition couldn't be heard even from behind a curtain.

Here's a ringing endorsement of using craving and a fetter to cross over -

"'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will — through the ending of the fermentations — enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then, at a later time, he abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then, at a later time, he abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

AN 4.159

Coupled with MN 44's assurance that such types of longing do not come with the usual anusaya in tow, why the qualm about craving, desire and intention to practise?

dhamma follower wrote:the main point made in the post was about our being hearers only, and that we have to rely on his words to develop understanding, and that we actually have a very low level of wisdom. If you wish, you might directly address those points.

I thought that's precisely what I addressed. i.e. relying on the Buddha's words as opposed to the words of others with less wisdom (such as the non-sammasambuddhas who write commentaries, hagiographies and Abhidhamma guides)

pt1 wrote:(c) All of K.S. students I came into contact with (except Kevin) consider their mindfulness, wisdom and other faculties to be quite underdeveloped. So, they are of the opinion that if they were to attempt intentional development, it would be largely unwholesome since underdeveloped faculties do not allow the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome states to be made, and thus, one’s likely to be developing largely unwholesome states, including wrong view, since unwholesome states predominate for someone with underdeveloped faculties.

pt1 wrote:In regards to all above, perhaps the main issue worth considering is how under/developed are my faculties?

dhamma follower wrote:and that we actually have a very low level of wisdom.

Is the underdeveloped/low level idea encouraged? What are we measuring against?

Sylvester wrote:Here's a ringing endorsement of using craving and a fetter to cross over -

"'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will — through the ending of the fermentations — enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then, at a later time, he abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

There are different interpretations of the sutta. One that appeals to me at this point is that the actual abandoning of craving happens by understanding craving (tilakkhana etc) when it arises in the here and now - in that way the craving is used/relied upon.

Sylvester wrote:Coupled with MN 44's assurance that such types of longing do not come with the usual anusaya in tow, why the qualm about craving, desire and intention to practise?

Anusaya is one of those things I can't quite wrap my mind around. Could you please give a bit more detail about what you mean here in reference to MN 44? Thanks.

pt1 wrote:In regards to all above, perhaps the main issue worth considering is how under/developed are my faculties?

dhamma follower wrote:and that we actually have a very low level of wisdom.

Is the underdeveloped/low level idea encouraged? What are we measuring against?

My take on it was:

pt1 wrote:From what I gather, it seems the very basis is the ability to know an instance with mindfulness as different from an instance without it (so, basically, the faculty of wisdom is developed at least to the extent of knowing what the actual experience of mindfulness is).

Without wisdom developed at least to such basic level, I find it hard to tell whether I'm developing wholesome or unwholesome qualities at any given moment, and hence I've no clue really whether what I'm doing is right or wrong, regardless of what I happen to believe.

pt1 wrote:Without wisdom developed at least to such basic level, I find it hard to tell whether I'm developing wholesome or unwholesome qualities at any given moment, and hence I've no clue really whether what I'm doing is right or wrong, regardless of what I happen to believe.

Well then good grief, get on with figuring that out. What are you waiting for? You seem to be lacking urgency.

"There is the case where a monk, as day departs and night returns, reflects: 'Many are the [possible] causes of my death. A snake might bite me, a scorpion might sting me, a centipede might bite me. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me. Stumbling, I might fall; my food, digested, might trouble me; my bile might be provoked, my phlegm... piercing wind forces [in the body] might be provoked. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me.' Then the monk should investigate: 'Are there any evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die in the night?' If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head, in the same way the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. But if, on reflecting, he realizes that there are no evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then for that very reason he should dwell in joy & rapture, training himself day & night in skillful qualities.

Thanks, sorry for being unclear - I think my problem is that with such underdeveloped faculties, intentionally applying the advice in the sutta

kirk5a wrote:... Then the monk should investigate: 'Are there any evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die in the night?' If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities...

is impossible, since I can't really tell if there are any evil states in the first place. In other words, I might sit down to meditate, or if I don't like meditation, I might start reading up on Dhamma, or just try to arouse "extra desire, effort, diligence," etc, but I still won't know if there are any evil states arising at the time or not, as my mindfulness is far from "undivided". Hence, I find the suttas quoted in the very beginning of the thread by robertk very valuable in the sense that they probably apply both to more advanced students as well as to those of us still in the kindergarten so to speak (like me at least).

dhamma follower wrote:the main point made in the post was about our being hearers only, and that we have to rely on his words to develop understanding, and that we actually have a very low level of wisdom. If you wish, you might directly address those points.

I thought that's precisely what I addressed. i.e. relying on the Buddha's words as opposed to the words of others with less wisdom (such as the non-sammasambuddhas who write commentaries, hagiographies and Abhidhamma guides)

Metta,Retro.

Dear Retro,

Did you mean the idea that:

(1) The self-awakened beings are only Buddhasand(2) The others, who are not to become enlightened by one-self in this life, depend on the Buddha's teaching in order to attain enlightenment, and they are called hearersand(3) We today, not getting enlightened upon hearing a sutta, short or long, having even no clear understanding of what is wholesome and what is unwholesome, let alone what is a dhamma, are considered low in wisdom

dhamma follower wrote:(3) We today, not getting enlightened upon hearing a sutta, short or long, having even no clear understanding of what is wholesome and what is unwholesome, let alone what is a dhamma, are considered low in wisdom

has not been taught by the Buddha?

No... that wasn't taught by the Buddha.

Rather, it is a defeatist and Sujinist doctrine.

Conversely, this is the Buddha's teaching... spot the difference.

Anguttara Nikaya V.332 wrote:You should recollect the Dhamma like this: "Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself."

pt1 wrote:Thanks, sorry for being unclear - I think my problem is that with such underdeveloped faculties, intentionally applying the advice in the sutta

kirk5a wrote:... Then the monk should investigate: 'Are there any evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die in the night?' If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities...

is impossible, since I can't really tell if there are any evil states in the first place. In other words, I might sit down to meditate, or if I don't like meditation, I might start reading up on Dhamma, or just try to arouse "extra desire, effort, diligence," etc, but I still won't know if there are any evil states arising at the time or not, as my mindfulness is far from "undivided". Hence, I find the suttas quoted in the very beginning of the thread by robertk very valuable in the sense that they probably apply both to more advanced students as well as to those of us still in the kindergarten so to speak (like me at least).

Best wishes

Hi pt1How do you know your mindfulness is "far from undivided"? How is it possible to know "far from undivided" but not know "evil states"? Is it possible to know the doubt?Food for thought.

pt1 wrote:is impossible, since I can't really tell if there are any evil states in the first place.

This is too much. Don't you know that greed, anger and delusion are bad? Coarse levels should be easy to spot, more subtle levels are described quite well in VsM under "corruption of insight".

Until one is high level Aryan, you aren't expected to have Arahant's wisdom.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

pt1 wrote:Thanks, sorry for being unclear - I think my problem is that with such underdeveloped faculties, intentionally applying the advice in the sutta

kirk5a wrote:... Then the monk should investigate: 'Are there any evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by me that would be an obstruction for me were I to die in the night?' If, on reflecting, he realizes that there are evil, unskillful mental qualities unabandoned by him that would be an obstruction for him were he to die in the night, then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities...

is impossible, since I can't really tell if there are any evil states in the first place. In other words, I might sit down to meditate, or if I don't like meditation, I might start reading up on Dhamma, or just try to arouse "extra desire, effort, diligence," etc, but I still won't know if there are any evil states arising at the time or not, as my mindfulness is far from "undivided". Hence, I find the suttas quoted in the very beginning of the thread by robertk very valuable in the sense that they probably apply both to more advanced students as well as to those of us still in the kindergarten so to speak (like me at least).

You cannot tell. This might be what Sujin teaches, but it is not what the Buddha taught. And the suttas robertk quoted at the beginning of this thread do not support this weak vision of Dhamma practice that you and the other followers of Sujin are advocating. It is simply not what the Buddha taught.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

dhamma follower wrote:(3) We today, not getting enlightened upon hearing a sutta, short or long, having even no clear understanding of what is wholesome and what is unwholesome, let alone what is a dhamma, are considered low in wisdom

has not been taught by the Buddha?

No... that wasn't taught by the Buddha.

Rather, it is a defeatist and Sujinist doctrine.

Perhaps, DF means that we don't hear suttas, tailored specifically for us, directly from the Buddha. That's an observational fact.

Furthermore, a number of suttas speak about an eventual decline in the Dhamma, which is, of course, implicit in the concept of a Sammasambuddha.

dhamma follower wrote:(3) We today, not getting enlightened upon hearing a sutta, short or long, having even no clear understanding of what is wholesome and what is unwholesome, let alone what is a dhamma, are considered low in wisdom

has not been taught by the Buddha?

No... that wasn't taught by the Buddha.

Rather, it is a defeatist and Sujinist doctrine.

Perhaps, DF means that we don't hear suttas, tailored specifically for us, directly from the Buddha. That's an observational fact.

Furthermore, a number of suttas speak about an eventual decline in the Dhamma, which is, of course, implicit in the concept of a Sammasambuddha.

The idea of "eventual decline" is an Indian thing, likely predating the Buddha and continues to date, showing no signs of declining. While we no longer have suttas tailor made for each of us, I seriously doubt that the "eventual decline" has progressed to the point that there is so little we can do, as the Sujinists seem to imply, or directly state, in terms of an actual practice of the Dhamma. As carefully outlined in the suttas, I would say that there is a great deal we can do.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

mikenz66 wrote:a number of suttas speak about an eventual decline in the Dhamma

Such decline is appropriately understood to be with causes and conditions; non-respect for the triple gem, the teaching, and samadhi in one case. Another case mentions a cause as not listening to deep discourses, anothercouple talk of future dangers which can be addressed, and so on.

One sutta even mentions that growth can be expected, given the proper conditions. Here, once again, we find that the Dhamma can last a long time, given the proper behaviors.

The later prophecies of decline are just that - later.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]